RE: The Perfect Solution
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
>
> Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > What's wrong with the includes that come with Euphoria? If this is such
> > a great problem, why have I noticed only 2 people mention this (you and
> > Mr Bensler)? Why should we change *our* hobbies (or work--I often use
> > Eu at work) to please you?
>
> For your information, the issue of creating a new standardized library
> set is YEARS old. And there are MANY people who agree. YOU may not be
> one of them, and that's fine, but the general attitude of this community
> is like Jason implied. Ignore all progress for the sake of preserving
> old code.
> A sourceforge project was even started before. They probably gave up
> because they could see that nobody would accept the changes they wanted
> to make.
Yes, I recall that project. There was some interest, but obviously not
enough. There were probably other reasons that people wouldn't accept
the changes than 'the sake of preserving old code.'
> > If one is truly
> > superior, chances are that most people will use that one (assuming it
> > meets their needs). Does that mean that we should all delete the other
> > one from our hard drives?
> You don't have to do anything. Nobody is forcing you to change anything.
> However I am being forced to change all of my filenames. Thank you very
> much.
You're welcome. You missed the point of Jason's post. He was upset that
there were multiple libraries for similar tasks. Look, I fully agree that
the current file name implementation is flawed. It seems nearly trivial
to use canonical file names, although I could see situations where this
could cause problems if multiple copies/files existed in multiple places
in the include search path.
> Instead, I will likely write my own preprocessor for my libs, and
> abandon compatability with official RDS code. That will solve the
> problem.
>
> Then we will have a complete fork of the Euphoria commmunity, and those
> who choose to, can stay with RDS and their perpetual hacks.
>
> Perhaps I would provide compatability solutions, for a price.
Yay. No one has really explained here what is wrong with the standard
include files provided by RDS. We've been discussing lots of stuff about
the interpreter itself. Frankly, if you're replacing the standard files
and are interested in sharing, you probably *should* rename them to
prevent confusion. Also, IIRC, the project to create some standard
includes was focused on extending the standard includes to include the
most common sort of things that many people use.
> But just because RDS has established some crappy libraries as
> standards, doesn't mean we have to live with them for eternity.
I have never said that. I've asked *why* they're crappy. And I'm happy
to look at alternatives to what we have, just like I look at other
alternatives to all the libraries I use. If you've really got a better
mousetrap, I'd like to see it. Until then, it's just vaporware and
your arguments probably aren't going to sway many people.
> I forgot to mention the fact that there is essentially no other websites
> for Euphoria programmers. Other than a handful of mainly personal
> programmers pages, and a few (strongy opposed I might add) attempts to
> provides users with alternatives to RDS's monopoly.
>
> Why do you think this situation exists, and how do you figure that is
> healthy?
I think that the community just isn't that big. There is really no
justification for another commercial web site. So it's left to the
users. I know I don't have a lot of time (or the interest) to put up
much more than what I have on the web.
What are these 'strongly opposed' attempts at breaking RDS's monopoly.
There have been a few message board attempts, and there are several
people working on an open source implementation of Euphoria.
The message boards go away because they're not as useful as this forum.
Some people like to get their messages by email. There is a much wider
user base for this forum than the others (a chicken and the egg scenario).
It's easier to check one source than many. That doesn't stop people from
using them, but it also doesn't mean that they're strongly opposed. Yes,
it does help that this is the Official forum, but it's not like Rob
censors people (at least not on-topic messages).
Frankly, I'm for more choices. I don't understand why you think
otherwise.
Matt Lewis
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
